autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

DAVID: I have presented information from Yellowstone studies to show how human intervention spoils ecosystems and reduce s food supply. You just don't want to see the importance of balance.

dhw: We all know human intervention is changing the balance of nature! But that has absolutely nothing to do with your hypothesis that your God created the weaverbird’s nest and billions of other innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to keep life going just for the sake of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. That is why I complain, when I challenge your “balance of nature” defence of this hypothesis, that you use the obvious truth about human interference as a diversionary tactic.

No diversion. I use the damage we do to balance as an example of showing in a reverse way the importance of continuing balance. Sorry you don't see that. Yellowstone shows it.

dhw: Re-read my sentence above, and then tell me why your God had to give the weaverbird private lessons in knot-tying in order to keep life going until he could produce the human brain. “For some reason” is no better a reason that the fact that humans are changing the balance of nature.

For me the complex weaver nest offers special protection for young weavers. Therefore it is obvious to conclude weavers are important to the ecosystem in which they belong, and therefore God helped.

DAVID: Paul Davies and I view the human brain as something very special. It's appearance is an amazing achievement and must have special significance. I view it as God's goal. You don't have to.

dhw: Do you think you and Paul Davies are alone in regarding the human brain as a special and amazing achievement? Of course it’s special and amazing! (Out of interest, does he share your belief that it was God’s one and only purpose?)

You know he doesn't.

dhw: However, you also think that every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder you name on this website is a special and amazing achievement – though nowhere near as special and amazing as the human brain – because according to you, your God specially designed every single one of them. Neither of us has to believe anything, but the whole point of these discussions is to test ALL the different hypotheses, to see what does and doesn’t make sense. And if you can’t think of reasons for your own, maybe your reasoning is wrong.

I given you weaver reasoning above. Your problem is the only way you will accept God is if you understand His exact reasoning, which I view as impossible. I'll stick with Adler: reasoning beyond a reasonable doubt. You can keep on doubting.